Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sarita vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:184352
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3011 of 2023
Revisionist :- Smt. Sarita
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Awasthi,G.A.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. List of the fresh cases is being revised. No one is present on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.
3. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist, challenging therein the judgment and order dated 27.3.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 547 of 2017 (Smt. Sarita & Anr. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Mishra) whereby case of the revisionist, for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., had been rejected.
4. The revisionist through this revision has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2023 only to the extent of rejection of the revisionist's case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2023 had rejected the revisionist's case for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the ground that she is not living with her husband without there being any justifiable reason to do so, whereas the husband of the revisionist filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which had been dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2019, wherein a categorical finding had been recorded that the revisionist has sufficient reasons, not to live with her husband.
6. It has further been argued that the order passed in the case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein, categorical finding had been recorded that the revisionist is living separately for justifiable reasons, has not been challenged by Opposite Party No. 2 therefore, there cannot be any occasion for the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar to reject the revisionist's application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., on the ground that she is living separately without there being any justifiable reason.
7. Since no one has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, therefore this Court does no have any option except to proceed to decide this matter in absence of learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
9. I find that Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra field a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the said case had been decided by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 29.11.2019, wherein categorical finding had been recorded that the revisionist is not living with her husband for justifiable reasons. For ready reference the finding recorded in the order dated 29.11.2019 is extracted as under :-
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
??? ?????? ??????-1 ????????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???"
10. This Court further finds that the order dated 29.11.2019 passed in the case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was very well available before the trial court and same was also taken into account while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2023. This Court fails to understand as to when, the categorical finding had already been recorded in the order passed in the case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that wife has sufficient reason, not to live with her husband, then how the trial court while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., had recorded contrary finding that wife does not have sufficient reasons for not living with her husband.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the case of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for award of maintenance, had been rejected on absolutely misconceived ground.
12. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar is set aside to the extent of rejection of the case of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
13. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar is directed to reconsider the case of the revisionist, for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., afresh and pass appropriate order.
Order Date :- 25.11.2024
Gaurav
